|
|
 |
2 out of 5: Too much fluff
Reviewer: chicoer2003 "chicoer2003" (Fresno, CA US)
“…and not enough substance. Try The Economist instead or go for one of the ideological magazines.”
2 out of 5: Too much U.S.-related news, too little world news.
Reviewer:"anonymous68" (San Jose, CA USA)
“TIME's United States print edition focuses too much on domestic news and events related to the U.S., especially war, terrorism, and homeland security. TIME's Asian edition is much better at reporting world news but it is unavailable on newsstands in the U.S.”
2 out of 5: Surreptitious.
Reviewer: "davisstudent" (Sacramento, CA USA)
“As for the general magazine, I find it slightly more conservative than its highly liberal (yet similar) counterpart, Newsweek. Although the magazine does not carry very analytical articles, such as those found in The Atlantic, it does carry timely information on national events. It is sort of the national daily newspaper of magazines. Despite the annual hitch in the road that is the "Time Annual," TIME magazine serves its purpose adequately.”
2 out of 5: Used to be great, but has lost its edge.
Reviewer: Rachel Lai "jvrlai" (London, Ontario Canada)
”I used to read Time, used to enjoy its dissection of political, social, and ethical issues. The writing was always top-notch and it never seemed frivolous. Then they started choosing completely inane cover stories (Newsweek has been plagued by the same problem). I don't think its the stories themselves I mind (after all, they stuck Molly Ringwald on the cover in '86), I think its the way the magazine's outlook has changed: they're no longer intellectually stimulating (if ever a magazine was politically correct and completely non-threatening, this is it) and they seem to be content with peddling scientific tabloid fodder ("The science of catching a KILLER"). I cancelled my subscription last year, and nothing has convinced me to renew it. Hopefully, one day something will.”
2 out of 5: tendentious.
Reviewer: A magazine reader
“Could more impartial as all the journalism should be, but the media in US is already very tendentious and patriotic, which is not good. When we read an article, we have to see both sides and then think about it and have our own judgement of the subject. This magazine does not give a worldwide view of the news, but the American view of something. Criticism is good because people can think more and analyse more deeply the subject. European and Latin magazines are very critical with themselves, with their own politics, economy and everything else, which is good.”
|
|
|
